A Kingdom of Conscience

I had the privilage of watching Kingdom of Heaven for the second time last night. It's an amazing movie, repleat with epic battles and grand stroytelling reminiscent of Gladiator. Perhaps the most unique aspect of the movie is that it is, for the most part, a movie about Christianity and finding God. And yet, in an irony not lost on anyone who was really paying attention to the subtle undertones of the movie, none of the major characters are truly Christian, nor do any of them find God. What are we to make of this?

As you, being a Christian, watch this movie, as one scene after another of dialog about God and virtue and goodness float through your ears, it rings at once very true and very strange. Set in Christian occupied Jerusalem, there is an uneasy truce between the King of Jerusalem and Saladin, leader of the Muslums. But the villians in this movie are not the muslims who sit at Jerusalem's door, but the brainwashed Christians within her walls. They are blind followers of a misguided church that advocates hate and violence. In contrast, all of the movie's heroes claim to be Christian only as a formality, and every one of their many musings on God and religion are laced with 21st century psuedo-philosophy (making the whole movie one big anachronism). As one main character says, "I don't put much stock in religion...holiness is in right actions."

So what do we get out of this movie? That the crusades were unjust, and that committing violence and murder in the name of God is evil. Ok, I don't think anyone would actually disagree with that. And is it wrong to say that holiness is in right actions? Of course not (of course holiness comes from the grace of God and Christ's redemptive work, but right actions are certainly the fruit we bear as a result of that. Still, Aristotle did point out that simply doing a good act doesn't make you a good person, but I digress). The problem is that this movie suggests that all organized religion leads to biggotry and hatred (and in some cases violence). I hear it all the time from people who just seem to know somehow that there is a god, but they don't believe any one religion has it right. This kind of thinking is far more dangerous than that of the outright athiest. Everyone knows there's a higher power out there, but many are turned off by the stigma of organized religion. What you are left with is a large group of liberals who must reconcile their belief in a god with their contrived notions of tolerance and open-mindedness. And it doesn't help that in the eyes of the media (especially Hollywood) Christians and Catholics are synonymous. It's pretty sad when the only choice I can make on MySpace regarding my religious afilliation is "Christian - Other", especially when I know that half of the people who put that are more "other" than "Christian." So what do we do? How do we take back our culture and our world? Hollywood demonizes us and science writes us off as unfounded superstition. Personally, I'm not planning on going to Hollywood anymore, so I'll be starting in the arena of science. The war to find the Kingdom of Conscience will be hard fought, but it's about time we started fighting it.

A mind by any other name

I picked up the latest issue of The Telescope today and after briefly glancing over the front page an article caught my eye. It was in the Op-Ed category and was titled "Government should stay out of our lives." I assumed this would be just another case of some liberal student writer wasting paper, but I was shocked to find out what a real gem this article actually was [note: BLATENET sarcasm] This article was written by Robin Schramm (direct quotes from the article are in quote blocks). Ok, so here goes.

Politicians love making grand speeches about saving the nation and uniting the country. I hope they never succeed. I don't think I want to be united with several of my neighbors or their smelly dogs. And yet reporters chase after these politicians as if they rediscovered the wheel. You've seen this before: the reporter with the "professional" demeanor introduces a senator as if he or she might walk on water. What gives? What's so great about government? I'm not sure government is great at all.

I'm sure the smelly dogs line was meant to be funny, but it comes off as silly and immediately gives the whole article a childish tone. And right at the end of the first paragraph (you know, where the thesis of the article is placed) we read, "I'm not sure government is great at all." Yep, you've hooked us now, Rob.

The government requires tons of money, literally. The federal government alone had a budget of $2.6 trillion for 2005 - 20 percent of the entire U.S. economy-that's about 22 tons of $100 bills. To put things in perspective, an elephant weighs about 4-6 tons. I suppose it's no coincidence, then, that President Bush and the current Republican Party - the biggest spenders since Lyndon Johnson - use the elephant as their mascot.

Silly tree-huggers want to take tons, literally tons, of money away from people and use it to cure the environment or something. They want to take away about 15 tons in $100 bills. To put things in perspective, a giant redwood tree weighs about 8 tons. I suppose it's no coincidence that these tree-huggers use the tree as their mascot...

See Robin, I can make pointless comparisons using meaningless values too.

Worst of all, the government is arrogant. The government is always telling us what to do and how to do it. The Food and Drug Administration tells us which drugs we can use; the Federal Communications Commission tells us which television programs we can watch; the Occupational Safety and Health Administration tells our bosses we aren't safe at work; the Internal Revenue Service exhorts us with 17,000 pages tax code; the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms keep us from having fun; and the repository for all these regulations, the Federal Register, is more than 75,000 pages and climbing.

Does anyone need this much help from the government? Wouldn't it be easier if we did these things for ourselves?

How dare the Occupational Safety and Health Administration tell my boss what to do for his employees! What happened to the good old days when workers could lose limbs on the job and get nothing for it?! Hasn't anyone here read The Jungle? I LOVE books with happy endings!

Oh, and this is my favorite part: "...and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms keep us from having fun..." This article is definately picking up momentum for a big finish, I can feel it.

Maybe I'm being unfair. Government does some things well. Police, firefighters, and our military protect us from bad guys. Courts help us keep the neighbor's smelly dog out of our yards. Roads are convenient and practical (when they aren't clogged with traffic and littered with potholes). That's five good things.

It just seems wrong to pay so much money so that other people can feel important, churn out second-rate products, and tell us what to do.

But if you're from the IRS and you're reading this, I take it all back: taxes are low and intuitive, politicians are eloquent and insightful, and I'm glad the DEA is "winning" the war on drugs because I really need to cut back.

So it's pretty obvious that this guy(or girl) isn't a socialist weasel, in fact he(she) sounds a lot like a libratarian. I guess you don't HAVE to be a liberal to critisize the Bush administration, though it usually helps. This article is, however, a perfect example of how dullards with poor writing ability need no party affiliation, there are more than enough on both sides. I mean honestly, I expect this level of writing from The New York Times, but not The Telescope! At least the usual religion-bashing articles of the emperical fascists that I've become accostomed to in The Telescope are well-written, even if the level of content is about the same.

Closed-minded open-mindedness

Two men encounter each other on the street. One man (we shall call him Mr. Blue) proudly displays a t-shirt which reads in large, bold letters; Marriage is not a privilage it's a RIGHT. The other man (whom we shall call Mr. Red) also sports a t-shirt bearing large, bold letters, only his reads; Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. Mr. Blue is appalled by what he reads on Mr. Red's t-shirt and excalims, "You closed-minded bigot!"

Excluding for the moment the possibility that poor Mr. Red is blind and wasn't aware of what his t-shirt said, what else makes Mr. Blue's verbal attack unwarrented? As my good friend Donald once put it, "for [Mr. Blue] to be truly open-minded, he must be open to my closed-mindedness."

This statement, though at first glance confusing, is entirely accurate. The truth is, we're all closed-minded, the "open-minded" liberals are simply in denial of their true state (we might say the same about certain evangellical denominations, but I leave that discussion for another time).

Or, if you wish to look at it a different way, we are ALL actually open-minded (and by all I'm referring only to those who have made their own REASONED decisions on issues, based on all available information, since that is the basic definition of an open-minded person).

In short, a person is NOT closed-minded when he has formed a reasoned belief and after he encounters an opposing reasoned belief (and after weighing all the evidence for each) he does not change his mind. This person has simply determined that his reasoned belief is still better. Likewise, a person is not open-minded simply because he forms his beliefs based solely on popular opinion.

After reading some of the comments made by liberals on Dustin's blog the other day, the ridiculous contradictions within their arguments were abound. They yell and curse at conservative biggots for their views, yet claim to be open-minded. Suppose homosexuality really is an abomination? Wouldn't a truly open-minded person be open to that view as well? Next they cry out that their freedom of speech is being trampled upon, yet they seek to silence the clcosed-minded, dogmatically driven conservative biggot for his oppressive views. Forget being open-minded, these upstanding crusaders of justice and equality need to work on a basic understanding of foundational logic first.

And the truly ironic thing of all? Closed-minded opinions are often formed based on strong negative emotions...the kind of strong negative emotions that conservative beliefs seem to evoke in their liberal opponents. Not that I'm insinuating anything. :)

So here's the big question; Are we, the Christian right, open-minded? In the strict sense, yes we are. We have formed reasoned beliefs based on Biblical knowlege and rationality, and the simple fact that we refuse to sacrifice our integrity to "keep up with the times" does not make us closed-minded. In the sense that the secular (aka, irrational) world views "open-mindedness", no we are most certainly not, nor should we strive to be. Without delving into the idiocy of relativism (since this post grows far too long already and the hour grows far too late) Christians have no business trying to be more accepting or tolerant of secular ideologies. There is right and there is wrong. Period. God gave us sixty-six books worth of information on what is right and what is wrong, and if we claim to be Christians who believe in and follow His word, we should be anything but (from the world's point of view) "open-minded."

A boring entry to update you on my life

Bio Test #2 was today. In a rather ironic twist of fate the essays were cake, while much of the multiple choice section got pretty sticky. I think I did well overall though (most likely not 100%, but hopefully an A). Steph and I are going to be doing a project on food poisoning. We get to make a poster of some sort with lots of pictures and random facts regarding our topic spackled about with crazy glue. It feels rather childish, to be honest. One of those things I don't imagine they do at a regular, four-year college (with the exception of perhaps an elementary ed class).

I also got my new glasses today. Two pairs actually, one regular and one tinted. For those of you who were unaware that I had lost my last pair of glasses, now you know. Since there isn't much point in inventing some terribly elaborate story that would make me look better, I'll just stick with the truth; I stuck my head out the window to let the wind blow through my hair (a habit I picked up from Dave Jasperse, and something I know most of you have done before). Unfortunately, on this particular occasion I was on the freeway travelling at approximately 70+ mph and when I turned my head ever so slightly too far, my glasses flew right off my face and landed somewhere on the middle lane of the 78 freeway going East. Not one of my finer moments, but I think it turned out for the best. I also got a haircut today, so I'm sporting an entirely new look for late Fall/early Winter. I'll see about posting some pictures soon. And now it's later than it should be, and my bed is calling to me...or rather my couch is calling to me. :P

It's (sort of) official, I'm a Democrat now.

So, Francine Busby came to my school today, at the behest of the Democrat Club. My Polisci professor caught me on my way to go sit down and have a quiet lunch while I waited for Steph to get out of class and asked if I would stay and help fill the seats (since they were all noticably empty just 10 minutes before she was due to speak). I agreed, and soon after Mrs. Busby arrived I was surrounded by other students, most of whom were members of the Democrat Club (some students from the Rebuplican Club also attended). I ended up sitting right next to one of my managers from work, who writes for the school newspaper. In short, Mrs. Busby said nothing remotely interesting or thought provoking and I ended up leaving early when Steph called.

Later that day, when I got to work, my manager told me that I would probably get my picture put in next weeks's paper. She said the photographer specifiaclly asked her for my name. Upon hearing this I immediately began invisioning the picture of me sitting with Democrats, listening to Francine Busby speak, right on the front page of the Palomar College Telescope. Below the picture is the caption: "David Nilsen joins Palomar College Democrats in welcomming Francine Busby to speak on campus last thursday morning." And thus any hope of my running for President as a Republican someday is lost. Haha. If such a picture does end up in the paper next week, I'll be sure to post it up here.

That's all I wanted to say, I figured I was due for a short, to the point entry. I'll write something far more profound when next I feel inspired to do so. I just thought this little anicdote was amusing enough to share.